why d4 is better than e4

For everyone who responds that 1. e4 is undefended - name the replies that contest it being undefended.

1. e4 Nf6 - what is this supposed to prove?

1. e4 f5 - okay?

1. e4 d5 - still, nothing to worry about...

So what if it is undefended?  There is more to chess than overprotecting a pawn from move 1.  1. c4 is undefended too, and doesn't develop but one piece.  

Seriously, I used to think the same thing - Why open with 1. e4 if it is undefended?  But 1. e4 allows White 3 options - to defend, to push, or to take.  Or actually, #4 - to gambit the pawn.  

Chess is more complex than "1. e4 is undefended, so don't play it".

Chessforfun, im pretty sure gmt intended it as a sarcastic comment. Since white goes first, if white had the absolute winning advantage then chess would no longer need to be played. 

and the Turkish bath

If you had a computer that is one million times stronger than the current best computer, and if this computer was allowed to calculate for one million years it would arrive at the conclusion that that the best move is 1. d4.

Actually, it came up with 1. g3.

What is the need of a supercomputer running for a million years when the genius chess.com members have already figured it out?

The Turk was displayed under very controlled conditions and with seeming tranparency while the public's conception of automatons, and science as a whole, was rather mythical and naive.  The idea that an automaton could really play chess wasn't so farfetched to people who saw automatons quack and lay eggs, talk, sing and squawk, play instruments, etc. Even a renowned scientic mind such as Ben Franklin played the Turk without guessing it's secret, or even that it had one.   The fact that Kempelen and then Maezel were able to retain actual masters (and not dwarves or midgets) who made the Turk seem invincible only increased the illusion.  Many people did suspect a hoax, and some even came close to guessing, but no one could ever prove it (though it was actually exposed by a former operator).   I've amassed nearly every historical document regarding the Turk and other automatons here, for anyone who might be interested in such things.

Sounds like a lot of speculation to me.

Sounds like a lot of hyposcrisy to me.

The Turk is pretty fascinating to me, particularly the years it spent in the USA. But I find Ajeeb and Mephisto nearly as fascinating.  Back then, the operators were called "Directors."  Here's a list of the Directors of all three (as far as I've been able to determine). William (Wilhelm) Schlumberger, also called Mulhouse, was probably not just the longest employed, but the best player of the lot of Turk Directors.  I had made a brief bio of Schlumberger.

if i had a computer a million times faster i would be living a grand life-style.AS for a million years, i am very-very lucky to have reached 69.Come on ,it's a head game....most of us non G.m's lose or win because of errors. E4,D4, has little meaning, and more to do w/ style or opinon

Hyposcrisy ? I'm not see that at all. My point is simply this ... whenever you make a statement and start it off with the word " if ", everything that follows is simply hypothetical ...nothing more / nothing less. If d4 IS superior to e4( hypothetical statement ) then Bobby Fisher was a lot better than we give him credit for being ! After all , he won a helluva lot of tournaments playing with an inferior opening . Facts are facts ...speculation is merely an educated guess at best. Assumptions and educated guesses are the same thing. One just has a prettier name ! 

Chrisr..

So your saying Nh3 isn't played often because they haven't found that sneaky checkmate. I'll assume your saying this because e4 and d4 are only played based on the amount of theory they've learned in either. I don't understand the whole message, or how it was supposed to be understood by just asking why isn't it played.

I think there is enough theory on both moves that proves that both players have have a good game depending on the next 20-something moves. What I do think is that these two moves are the better of any other move to start a game, but only slightly in comparison. Considering the fractions of a pawn that fluctuate at my level of play on every move, and the fun of playing different moves on purpose for a different position, the actual difference is irrelevant.

 e4, e6/c5

Some people I think seriously misunderstand the definition of a sharp opening and how many sharp openings there are after 1.e4. They seem to be blind to the fact that there is a whole world of difference between the definition of sharp openings and interesting openings - i.e., openings such as the Grand Prix Attack may be considered as sharp and aggressive by many players (who are correct in thinking so), but often sends many players on the black side drifting into a slumber.

 Yes, there are many sharp openings that occur after 1.e4, but the proportion of openings that are sharp and interesting are much higher in openings that occur after 1.d4.

when you leave e4 en prise, you allow him to take advantage of it later, evenif youdo end up defending it